06 August 2011

Why Student-Athletes Should Not Get Paid

I know I'm in the minority here but I personally feel that student athletes should not be paid but let me clear what that means in my mind. I do not think that schools should be paying their athletes. I do feel that athletes should get compensation if their jerseys are sold by companies like Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Under Armour, etc. as well as if their likeness is used in video games without their names appearing in them. I think that is fair. But ultimately the schools should not be paying the athletes and here is why.

One of the major concerns of paying players is how much should they get paid. Should all athletes be getting the same amount of compensation? It's a can of worms that could lead to serious problems. Is it fair that college football players, the clear biggest collegiate sport, as well as male and female basketball players get the same amount of money that water polo players or volleyball players or track and field participants get?
Paying athletes would give the bigger schools even more of an advantage over the so-called mid-majors. Only a few athletic departments are profitable and these days almost every college or university is having some sort of financial issues. How would the Sienas, the Lehighs, the Idaho States or the Florida Internationals compete with the Texasas, the Ohio States, the Floridas, the UCLA's of the college athletics spectrum? It simply would make a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots and severely hurt competition. Plus if schools would have to pay student-athletes, it would directly result in athletic departments dropping the less note-worthy, and less profitable, sports just to pay for the big sports' student-athletes. Many schools, particularly the smaller ones in the lower divisions of the NCAA, would have to drop athletics altogether.

Besides, is it really fair that student-athletes, a nice chunk are going to college for free or on partial scholarship, be on a different level than regular students simply because they play a sport? For most of the student-athletes in America, definitely more so on the bigger sports and at the bigger schools, their focus is on their respective sport. They get to miss class to attend games and matches, sometimes for very long periods of time, even during final exams or midterms. Students do not get that luxury. Students attends universities and colleges to get a good education, or to party, and how do students get rewarded for doing well? They don't get paid, they may get more financial aid, but that is pretty much it. But athletes already going to college for free or at a discount would get paid on top of that? These are student-athletes we are talking about, not professional athletes.

You always hear the demands that athletes get paid from those in the big, money making sports, football and basketball. You never hear that from the lesser sports. Why? Because their sports would most likely get cut just so some college football or college basketball player who is already going to college for free and get some coin on top of that? Is that fair? Of course it isn't. It's time that people advocating that student-athletes get paid wake up and realize what the ramifications of such a decision would be. Is paying collegiate athletes really worth taking away someone's dream of playing a sport? Is it really worth severely hurting competition? Would it really be worth hurting collegiate athletics forever?

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for posting this! It's really helped me with my school debate. :)